(12-09-2012 12:26 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote: There is this game that little children play called "telephone", where a message is repeated and the end result is either garbled or have little bearing on the initial message or..if it was very carefully repeated and "controlled" by the initial person, could be accurate.
The Bible claims to be truth and one can then ask the question - has what is reported as truth ever been proven as lies? No doubt, questions are raised from time to time and doubts cast.
My belief in the God of the Bible rests on faith but without having to put my head in the sand and ignoring issues. That is why I am delighted with your comments. As Christians, we often only discuss issues with other Christians and thus work from the same point of reference.
That there are questions that are very difficult to answer, goes without saying, but this does not by implication invalidate the Christian faith. As proof, it is obvious that (other) highly intelligent persons with the same set of facts that you have, come to a different conclusion.

Exactly. But with out strict control by the game initiator, the game goes off the rails. The Bible had no controller, and we KNOW that, and there is plenty of evidence for that.

Where exactly does the Bible "claim to be truth", and if it's there, how did that claim get there, in the first place ? THAT is the point. The writer claimed truth it for HIS OWN writing. It's circular, and without merit, without an EXTERNAL authentication. There is none.

You believe, because you believe, because you want to believe, because you NEED to believe. Why is that ?

Ultimately, it's not a religious question. It's a PSYCHOLOGICAL question of where that "need" arises from. Neuro-Psych has an answer for that.

Your "other people believe it" is the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy. "Other people" believed the world was flat. They were ALL wrong.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(11-09-2012 09:24 PM)Noelani Wrote: THIS is the stuff I am interested in. I really do believe that history lessons are what make myths crumble. It baffles me how biblical scholars can still believe in the bible after all they have learned.

Thank you for taking the time to put all of this together.

I wonder if I can make a request though... When I told my parents that I no longer believed in god there was one thing that my mom said that stuck with me. She said that she knew her religion, Christianity, was the religion of the one and only true god because no other religion has the holy spirit. I wonder anyone who knows can give me some insight into where the holy spirit came from. In some of my reading, not sure if this is accurate or not, I found some info that the holy spirit is present in other religions but either as a kind of characteristic of god or something like that... Anyone have some light to shed on this for me?

I'll try to answer that for you, but it's not easy. There are only three times in the Old Testament the words Holy Spirit are used, as such, together. The words "spirit", and "spirit of god" are used a number of times in the Prophetic texts. Each time the word "spirit" or spirit of god" is used, it means the "outstretched/outstretching" or "extension" of "power" of the god, or an active intermediary agent, with power, NOT a "person", (as in the theology of the Trinity), which developed later. In the early texts it just means "power". In the Prophets, it means "godly attitude", or an "attitude of obedience to the law", (ie the spirit of god). A bit later, in the Second Temple period, it had attached to it also a slightly more developed meaning of "disposition (in the human), of righteousness". (Still not a divine person). When the words of the gospels are placed in Jesus' mouth, (a literary device), the words still have the Old Testament nebulousness about them, but still more a power, attitude, and extension. When Paul get's a-hold of it, he makes it more "active", but still it's not a person. http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Spirit7.htm However, even in Paul, it's not yet fully developed, which took many hundreds of years to finally cook up, and was debated in the councils, and even in the Council of Nicaea, (325 CE), they had a HUGE fight over the meaning of the words they put in the creed, (called the "filioque procedit" debate ... which is Latin for "and from the Son", or "and proceeds from the Son"), ... they were fighting about how the spirit "works" or comes into being. To be continued.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(12-09-2012 12:07 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: If I were the almighty, omnipotent lord of the universe and actually took the time to prove it, I would be.

He did. 2000 years + . Apart from that, He does not have to prove anything. Even if He did prove as with the Israelites, you still would not believe. Jesus proved Himself with miracles, and claimed He was God, and no fault could be found with what He did and said, they still crucified him.
It is not a case of evidence, an intellectual decision. It is a change of heart. If you are honest with yourself, you will realise that deep down it is rebellion. It is not because you are worse than any other person. We are all sinners, but by the grace of God, he chose us - those who will believe.
It is never too late - evidenced by the criminal on the cross next to Jesus.
He invites each one of us to repent of sin and come to Him, accepting Him as Lord of our lives. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comments on Matt 11:28 "Those who come to Christ aright, come as sinners, to a full, suitable, able, and willing Saviour; venture their souls upon him, and trust in him for righteousness, life, and salvation, which they are encouraged to do, by this kind invitation; which shows his willingness to save, and his readiness to give relief to distressed minds."

He did such a good job communicating his message that there are tens of thousands of sects and hundreds of millions of individual schools of thought. It's statistically improbable that any two given Christians will agree on more than half of their theology. That's a great philosophy; it doesn't matter how distorted your message gets in the grand game of Telephone, as long as lots and lots of people play. That's not the method of someone that cares about their message much. That's the method of someone selling tobacco or drugs. It doesn't matter which flavor the marks like or what opinions they have, as long as they're hooked on the goods.

(12-09-2012 10:17 PM)Fromgenesis Wrote: If you are honest with yourself, you will realise that deep down it is rebellion.

If you are honest with yourself, you will realize that deep down it is all bullshit. People like you come here and whine about shit like, "what if you're wrong?" and none of you accept the same conditional. Take your "holier than thou" attitude and spin on down the road.

(12-09-2012 10:17 PM)Fromgenesis Wrote: Jesus proved Himself with miracles, and claimed He was God, and no fault could be found with what He did and said, they still crucified him.
It is not a case of evidence, an intellectual decision. It is a change of heart. If you are honest with yourself, you will realise that deep down it is rebellion. It is not because you are worse than any other person. We are all sinners, but by the grace of God, he chose us - those who will believe.

Of course Phaedrus, this is all total bullshit ..the usual party-line to justify the incomprehensible nonsense of a position with no evidence or honest justification.

a. There were many, (about 20 that we know of), Apocalyptic preachers running around at the time of Yeshua ben Josef, (Jeebus), who ALL were seen to be doing healings and miracles. So miracles, were proof of nothing, other than the general gullible, and uneducated state of the populace in general, in a pre-scientific age , where the literacy rate was about 5%, or less.

b. The city of Jerusalem at the time was built on a "temple based" economy. There were fees for the sacrifices, fees for the priests, fees for festival entry, fees for ritual bathing, fees for staying over night, etc, etc. Jewish custom required that all ritual fees be paid in Jewish currency. Thus there were many "money changers", as Roman coinage was the official currency during the occupation, and had to be changed. Yeshua threatened the economic stability of the city. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to summarily execute trouble makers, without a trial. Thus when Yeshua caused the incident in the temple, the authorities, (who had already been looking for him), arrested Yeshua, and executed him, as a public nuisance, (which of course he was). That assumes he even existed. There is good evidence he did not, and was a "combo" job of a few people, and was an entirely mythical person. Obviously the trials in the gospels were made up, as each one is different. One says he was silent, one has him giving a long speech, (and of course there were no witnesses, who would have participated in the writings, in either the High Priest's quarters, or the Roman official buildings).

c. Yeshua never claimed divinity. The term "son of god", was a common honorific term which was used, and applied to many famous "good guys", ..politicians, generals, preachers, possible messiahs, etc etc. Yeshua NEVER said he was god. If he had, he would have been stoned on the spot. Each of the gospels, now in the canon, has a VERY different concept of what the "divinity" was, and when it was "granted" to Yeshua, and what that meant. For example, in Mark, Jeebus was a human, always and only, and later raised to a divine status, (much as Roman emperors were ... ie "down -> up"). In John, the writers, (being Gnostics), portrayed him as an always, (pre-existent) divine being, who temporarily took on the corrupt human form, (while REMAINING divine), and then gave up the corrupt form, and returned to just divine status. ("Up -> up+down -> back to up). In Luke and Matthew, he was seen to give up divine status, and take on human form, and return to divine status. ("Up -> down -> up). Each, a very different concept.

d. The usual crap about "rebellion" (which is a fundamental rejection of the teaching of Jesus who said "judge not, lest ye be judged"), is part of the "salvation"/fall/sin paradigm, which seeks to explain the world in basically non-Biblical terms, (as the Old Testament..see link above was about Chaos, NOT "sin"), as the world view at the time was unaware of the scientific world-view, which is so much more successful, as an explanation of the Human Condition. It also "judges", with out really knowing, or attempting to know, a completely honest intellectual position, and puts an emotional position ahead of thought, and says no one can "honestly" reject the crap, because they have no other explanation for why someone would reject the bullshit they see as obvious. It's called "sef-righteousness", which is basically a psychological response to a perceived inferior position. It's also ignorance of their OWN theology. In the Christian theological system, faith is a virtue, freely granted by their "holy spirit", (capriciously to some, and not to others). So their own system asserts it's not a moral failing. Most Christians just know nothing about their own systematics.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(12-09-2012 10:17 PM)Fromgenesis Wrote: If you are honest with yourself, you will realise that deep down it is rebellion.

If you are honest with yourself, you will realize that deep down it is all bullshit. People like you come here and whine about shit like, "what if you're wrong?" and none of you accept the same conditional. Take your "holier than thou" attitude and spin on down the road.

You have actually placed words in my mouth that was never part of the discussion, but supposedly arguments that you have previously encountered in discussion with others.
If I am wrong, I will die and nothing will happen. But my "choice" is not based on fear of either the unknown or punishment, but rather as a result of a change of heart that was not the result of a premeditated evaluation of facts, but rather something that just happened. It is difficult to describe - although I have "consented" to accepting Christ, my heart was "prepared".
Thus, anybody that claims to be "holier than thou" claims for himself/herself merit where it is not deserved - as it is all by grace.

(13-09-2012 07:12 AM)Fromgenesis Wrote: You have actually placed words in my mouth that was never part of the discussion, but supposedly arguments that you have previously encountered in discussion with others.

(12-09-2012 10:17 PM)Fromgenesis Wrote: It is not a case of evidence, an intellectual decision. It is a change of heart. If you are honest with yourself, you will realise that deep down it is rebellion.

BTW, it realiZe.

Insufferable know-it-all.
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche

(12-09-2012 12:07 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: If I were the almighty, omnipotent lord of the universe and actually took the time to prove it, I would be.

He did. 2000 years + . Apart from that, He does not have to prove anything. Even if He did prove as with the Israelites, you still would not believe. Jesus proved Himself with miracles, and claimed He was God, and no fault could be found with what He did and said, they still crucified him.
It is not a case of evidence, an intellectual decision. It is a change of heart. If you are honest with yourself, you will realise that deep down it is rebellion. It is not because you are worse than any other person. We are all sinners, but by the grace of God, he chose us - those who will believe.
It is never too late - evidenced by the criminal on the cross next to Jesus.
He invites each one of us to repent of sin and come to Him, accepting Him as Lord of our lives. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comments on Matt 11:28 "Those who come to Christ aright, come as sinners, to a full, suitable, able, and willing Saviour; venture their souls upon him, and trust in him for righteousness, life, and salvation, which they are encouraged to do, by this kind invitation; which shows his willingness to save, and his readiness to give relief to distressed minds."

What proof are you referring to from 2000+ years ago. I would be very interested in having you produce this information as I was of the understanding there is no proof that such a person as Yeshua ben Joseph ever lived. So I am assuming you're bringing some compelling evidence to us. Stop holding back and lets see your proof.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness
~Izel